Why do they accept more freight? Because it does affect Amtrak.

[frj1983]

Since one of the big topics on this board tends to be the fact that the freight railroads have the tendency to give Amtrak the back seat; I have a question that continually burns the circuits in my brain and I can't find an answer for it:

If the freight Railroads don't have enough track to run the trains the already have, and don't have enough personnel to run the trains they currently have, Why, WHy, WHY do they keep accepting more and more freight??????????

I know that in the past, stories have been written which mention that the railroads are refusing freight, but in the last few months stories have been cropping up about the larger and larger amounts of freight coming from overseas and how the railroads are preparing themselves to handle it. The implication is that the RR's will handle all of this influx. And I can imagine that with the infrastructure problems the RR's currently have, how late will Amtrak trains be then?

It seems to me that they have reached the point (and maybe are past it) where thay have all that they can handle....and thus this supposedly "fluid" system of rail companies impacts Amtrak services with slow orders, bottlenecks, and freight train breakdowns. And I wonder to myself, are they really delivering the goods in any semblance of time to their customers?

If I were a customer looking at transporting goods on a regular basis, and I keep read about late Amtrak trains, it might lead me to ask: if they can't run an Amtrak train on time, how could they possibly help me transport my goods on time? Does anyone on the forum know anyone who transports goods by rail and what their feelings are about it?

This doesn't let Amtrak off on the lateness issue, either. Since their equipment seems to be breaking down more and more regularly...but that's another topic!

 

[Sam Damon]

There exists a simple solution for the questions you pose, frj1983: Write your US Representatives and Senators. Show up at any "town hall" style meetings they have. If you have time, attend a city council or county commission meeting. Award yourself bonus points for digging into the local Transportation Improvement Plan meetings. Make yourself known.

At each event ask your officials this question: "How is Amtrak supposed to break even if the freight railroads won't run their trains on time?" Buttress this questions with the latest OTP dismal digits from Amtrak.com. "Senator, Amtrak's Capitol Limited hasn't been on time into Chicago since (insert the last date). The California Zephyr hasn't been on time into Emeryville, California since 2006. Are you in favor of some sort of railroad reregulation to protect the nation's $30 billion+ investment in intercity passenger rail transportation? If not, have you any good ideas as to what to do?"

Let us know what your elected representatives think.

 

[Guest]

Since one of the big topics on this board tends to be the fact that the freight railroads have the tendency to give Amtrak the back seat; I have a question that continually burns the circuits in my brain and I can't find an answer for it:
If the freight Railroads don't have enough track to run the trains the already have, and don't have enough personnel to run the trains they currently have, Why, WHy, WHY do they keep accepting more and more freight??????????

If I were a customer looking at transporting goods on a regular basis, and I keep read about late Amtrak trains, it might lead me to ask: if they can't run an Amtrak train on time, how could they possibly help me transport my goods on time?

Because they make MONEY hauling freight--that's why they continue to accept it. Because it is cheaper to haul freight via the rails (more economical), customers will continue to use the railroads when they can.

As far as running Amtrak on time, where is their incentive? Sure, they are supposed to allow Amtrak the passage over the freights or be penalized, but, the money they earn hauling the freight counteracts the penalities that they would potentially be assessed. Given the options, I'd haul freight too, and only allow Amtrak through when absolutely necessary.

The last Amtrak trip I was on, we left the station, traveled for approximately 15 minutes, and then sat and waited nearly an hour to be allowd on the tracks; we were just east of Kansas City, where the dispataching changes over to UP. The rest of the trip, UP freights constantly passed/met us as we sat on sidings and waited for them. Their priority is definitely freights, and not Amtrak. We ended up almost 2 hours late on a simple 5 hour trip.

 

[Guest]

Because they make MONEY hauling freight--that's why they continue to accept it. Because it is cheaper to haul freight via the rails (more economical), customers will continue to use the railroads when they can.

If they are making so much of this money, why arn't they doing any work to expand their rail network to allow extra flow among their lines? I haven't anything about new rails being put in place by freight railroads. I can almost bet you that the rail system now is probably just a bit bigger than it was 10 yrs ago. Amtrak doesn't amke any money off of their laziness.

 

[Dakguy201]

Most of the Class I railroads need additional capacity beyond their immediate ability to finance it. The solution to this problem is for some public body -- state or federal -- to provide some help with an upgrade and negotiate priorities for passenger trains in return.

Incidentially, AMTRAK is very good at making onboard announcements regarding delays being caused by the host railroad. As anyone with a scanner will tell you, announcements about delays caused by AMTRAK itself are far less frequent and less specific.

 

[Guest]

The only Railroad that cares about Amtrak is BNSF they seem to try to run them on time as much as they can trains start taking the sidings about an hr and a half before Amtrak is due thru that area.

 

[MrFSS]

Anyone been following the Kansas City Smart Port? One thing they are/will be doing is to unload cargo ships on the Mexico Pacific coast and take them by rail to KC, thus alleviating the clogged ports in California and Washington. Evidently the KC Southern owns the rail lines in Mexico.

Big bone of contention has been that the customs area in KC is considered Mexican soil.

Here is a LINK

 

[AlanB]

As far as running Amtrak on time, where is their incentive? Sure, they are supposed to allow Amtrak the passage over the freights or be penalized, but, the money they earn hauling the freight counteracts the penalities that they would potentially be assessed. Given the options, I'd haul freight too, and only allow Amtrak through when absolutely necessary.

There are no penalties for the freight RR's that fail to give Amtrak priority. Whether they run Amtrak on time or not, Amtrak is still required to pay the freight company for using its rails. It would take a major intervention by either the FRA or the Justice Deparment to penalize the freight Co's that don't give Amtrak priority.

Now Amtrak does have a reward program, whereby it pays extra to RR's that give Amtrak priority, so a RR who fails to give priority could be leaving some of that bonus money on the table. Only problem is that the freight Co's typically stand to make more money by giving their freights priority to ensure timely arrival of the goods, than they stand to make from Amtrak's required payment as well as the bonus money offered.

 

[AlanB]

Because they make MONEY hauling freight--that's why they continue to accept it. Because it is cheaper to haul freight via the rails (more economical), customers will continue to use the railroads when they can.

If they are making so much of this money, why arn't they doing any work to expand their rail network to allow extra flow among their lines? I haven't anything about new rails being put in place by freight railroads. I can almost bet you that the rail system now is probably just a bit bigger than it was 10 yrs ago. Amtrak doesn't amke any money off of their laziness.

All the companies are doing some work to expand their networks, UP for example is working on double tracking it's Sunset route. BNSF has been working heavily on its transcon route, taking single track sections to double, double track sections to triple, and even some triple track sections to quad. Could they be doing more, sure.

The problem is that they have to answer to stock holders, banks, and other things. Not to mention that any expansion almost invariably means local opposition from NIMBY's. So any freight company has to not only find money for the actual expansions, they have to have money to pay lawyers to fight off the NIMBY's, they have to have money in the bank to stay solvent and get a good stock rating, they have to pay dividends to the stock holders to keep that stock rating, and of course they have to pay millions to the top executives.

That doesn't exactly leave a huge pot of money for massive expansion.

 

[AlanB]

The only Railroad that cares about Amtrak is BNSF they seem to try to run them on time as much as they can trains start taking the sidings about an hr and a half before Amtrak is due thru that area.

Actually CN does right by Amtrak too. In fact the Amtrak long distance train with the best on time record last year was the City of New Orleans, which runs on CN tracks. It had an impressive 84.4% on time arrival.

Compare that with the Empire Builders 60.1% or the SW Chief's 73.0%, both BNSF dispatched trains.

Of course even those numbers are hugely better than say UP's dispatching for the Coast Starlight at 3.9% or the Zephyr which came in at 6.9%.

 

[AlanB]

If the freight Railroads don't have enough track to run the trains the already have, and don't have enough personnel to run the trains they currently have, Why, WHy, WHY do they keep accepting more and more freight??????????
I know that in the past, stories have been written which mention that the railroads are refusing freight, but in the last few months stories have been cropping up about the larger and larger amounts of freight coming from overseas and how the railroads are preparing themselves to handle it. The implication is that the RR's will handle all of this influx. And I can imagine that with the infrastructure problems the RR's currently have, how late will Amtrak trains be then?

Well after UP's debacle with UPS, where they guaranteed a hotshot train and then couldn't deliver on time and had to start paying UPS to actually fly the stuff, most RR's got more cautious about accepting too much freight. Although they actually got more cautious about accepting hotshot freight, freight that must move from one point to another very rapidly.

While most passengers would complain about a 3 day trip turning into a 5 day trip, most freight is already on a 5 or more day schedule if it's going coast to coast. And most of the time, they deliver on time.

Turning to the question of them starting to accept more freight, those that are doing so are doing so because of a number of things. One, they are betting on the improvements that they have been making to their infrastructure, as well as betting on completing other planned improvements before that increased freight hits.

They are also doing so by being more careful about utilizing their equipment, for example making sure that a car capable of carrying a double stack is actually running with a double stack, as opposed to a single. They are also being more careful to put a 70 foot container into a car designed to hold a 70 foot container, not one designed to hold say a 90 foot container. By the way, I'm not really sure of the actual container sizes, I'm just using those numbers as examples.

Finally, in a move that may not be at all helpful to Amtrak, they continue to make thier trains longer and longer. They can increase capacity considerably by adding one more engine and then lengthening the train from say a 6,000 foot train to an 8,000 train. Doing so doesn't really tie up anymore signal blocks, it doesn't require more crews, and it doesn't require more track. What it does mean however, is that many of these trains no longer fit into the passing sidings, which of course now means that a meet between one of these monsters and Amtrak always finds Amtrak taking the siding.

 

[frj1983]

If the freight Railroads don't have enough track to run the trains the already have, and don't have enough personnel to run the trains they currently have, Why, WHy, WHY do they keep accepting more and more freight??????????

I know that in the past, stories have been written which mention that the railroads are refusing freight, but in the last few months stories have been cropping up about the larger and larger amounts of freight coming from overseas and how the railroads are preparing themselves to handle it. The implication is that the RR's will handle all of this influx. And I can imagine that with the infrastructure problems the RR's currently have, how late will Amtrak trains be then?

Well after UP's debacle with UPS, where they guaranteed a hotshot train and then couldn't deliver on time and had to start paying UPS to actually fly the stuff, most RR's got more cautious about accepting too much freight. Although they actually got more cautious about accepting hotshot freight, freight that must move from one point to another very rapidly.

While most passengers would complain about a 3 day trip turning into a 5 day trip, most freight is already on a 5 or more day schedule if it's going coast to coast. And most of the time, they deliver on time.

Turning to the question of them starting to accept more freight, those that are doing so are doing so because of a number of things. One, they are betting on the improvements that they have been making to their infrastructure, as well as betting on completing other planned improvements before that increased freight hits.

They are also doing so by being more careful about utilizing their equipment, for example making sure that a car capable of carrying a double stack is actually running with a double stack, as opposed to a single. They are also being more careful to put a 70 foot container into a car designed to hold a 70 foot container, not one designed to hold say a 90 foot container. By the way, I'm not really sure of the actual container sizes, I'm just using those numbers as examples.

Finally, in a move that may not be at all helpful to Amtrak, they continue to make thier trains longer and longer. They can increase capacity considerably by adding one more engine and then lengthening the train from say a 6,000 foot train to an 8,000 train. Doing so doesn't really tie up anymore signal blocks, it doesn't require more crews, and it doesn't require more track. What it does mean however, is that many of these trains no longer fit into the passing sidings, which of course now means that a meet between one of these monsters and Amtrak always finds Amtrak taking the siding.

I agree with everything you say Alan,

However you can increase the monster in size, but then you need more horsepower and fuel...and friction or entropy ultimately wins and slows things to a point where it's not feasible to run such...in other words how large can they make it before wear and tear on the locomotives, infrastructure, and fuel costs begin to lose them money? Add to that blocking access roads with these giant monsters especially in urban areas will not win the railroads any points with local, state and eventually the federal government. I could just see a case where one of those monsters blocks multiple access roads when the crew goes dead on the law, (especially in a city), and rescue squads can't get to where they need to be and multiple deaths happen(that could have been prevented). Do you see the Feds ultimately getting involved here? I do!

Actually, what I think should be done:threaten to dissolve Amtrak immediately and then the Feds require the RR companies to run trains on the designated City Pairings. Some money will be provided to offset the cost, but in order to gain any monies you must run the trains 85% or more on time. OK, that's my "in my wildest dreams" scenario, but I think it's time for the Feds to give the FRA some teeth to be able to deal with this mess.

And thanks for the suggestions, Sam, I already do some of that but you've given me some ideas for other things!

 

[Guest]

I agree with everything you say Alan,
However you can increase the monster in size, but then you need more horsepower and fuel...and friction or entropy ultimately wins and slows things to a point where it's not feasible to run such...in other words how large can they make it before wear and tear on the locomotives, infrastructure, and fuel costs begin to lose them money? Add to that blocking access roads with these giant monsters especially in urban areas will not win the railroads any points with local, state and eventually the federal government. I could just see a case where one of those monsters blocks multiple access roads when the crew goes dead on the law, (especially in a city), and rescue squads can't get to where they need to be and multiple deaths happen(that could have been prevented). Do you see the Feds ultimately getting involved here? I do!

I would assume the fuel cost and locomotive wear is the same as splitting them into 2 trains, but the cost of a second crew, and presumably other factors, make it cheaper.

 

[AlanB]

However you can increase the monster in size, but then you need more horsepower and fuel...and friction or entropy ultimately wins and slows things to a point where it's not feasible to run such...in other words how large can they make it before wear and tear on the locomotives, infrastructure, and fuel costs begin to lose them money? Add to that blocking access roads with these giant monsters especially in urban areas will not win the railroads any points with local, state and eventually the federal government. I could just see a case where one of those monsters blocks multiple access roads when the crew goes dead on the law, (especially in a city), and rescue squads can't get to where they need to be and multiple deaths happen(that could have been prevented). Do you see the Feds ultimately getting involved here? I do!

I would assume the fuel cost and locomotive wear is the same as splitting them into 2 trains, but the cost of a second crew, and presumably other factors, make it cheaper.

I'm not enough of an expert in locomotives to say for sure, but I would think that you might actually save slightly on fuel, because you are distributing the load across more engines. Certainly I would expect that wear and tear would be largely the same.

But definately the costs associated with needing to find two new crews every 8 to 10 hours as you cross the country is greater than the costs of fielding one crew as the train crosses the country.

However the real point here isn't the costs or expenses, it's moving more good through the existing track system. From what I understand, because of how the block system works, one can move more goods with longer but less frequent trains, than one can move with shorter but more frequent trains.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

It's possible that the net effect of significantly longer freights might not be as bad as first glance would suggest for Amtrak, if it decreases the frequency of the freights. Having to wait in a siding for UP to pass five shorter freights vs. perhaps one or two longer ones might not be so bad. Maybe it would give the Amtraks a better chance of skipping on to the next siding before the next freight. The longer freights will require more yard workers and larger yards, though, I would think. And certainly the additional time it takes to build those freights would almost require that they be less frequent unless the yards are made truly enormous, and there you have another NIMBY. I believe they have the technology to radio control mid-train helpers, in which case they could distribute the power better, perhaps have fewer broken couplers while still making the freights a lot longer.

 

[George Harris]

However you can increase the monster in size, but then you need more horsepower and fuel...and friction or entropy ultimately wins and slows things to a point where it's not feasible to run such...in other words how large can they make it before wear and tear on the locomotives, infrastructure, and fuel costs begin to lose them money? Add to that blocking access roads with these giant monsters especially in urban areas will not win the railroads any points with local, state and eventually the federal government. I could just see a case where one of those monsters blocks multiple access roads when the crew goes dead on the law, (especially in a city), and rescue squads can't get to where they need to be and multiple deaths happen(that could have been prevented). Do you see the Feds ultimately getting involved here? I do!

I am trying to thing of a polite way to say that your fingers have gotten ahead of what your brain knows and failed.

Believe it or not, a lot of these things about increasing train size and weight are analyzed by people that really do know what they are doing. Some companies have managements that are better at paying attention to the results of these analysis than others. Generally everybody does try to keep train lengths under the siding lengths. Weight limitations on the track are based on allowable pounds per axle. At any given weight per axle, the wear and tear on the track simply depends upon passing tonnage, regardless of the number of tons per train. In other words, eight 50 car trains is the same as two 200 car trains for track wear, but you have occupied eight signal blocks and eight crews instead of two. Power is determined by the horsepower per ton of train needed for the line, and with the building block nature of present day railroading, you can add train weight as long as you keep adding power up to the maximum practical for the line. The absolute maximum limitation on train length at this time with all head end power is determined by coupler strength. With distributed power, trains of 400 plus cars have been run experimentially, but so far this causes more problems than it is worth. Another factor with long trains is the propogation time through the train of an application and release of the brakes. Ways to reduce this are being studied. Blocking multiple crossings is already an issue and is usually covered by the rules. That is, if you know that you are about to go dead on the law, pick a good place to stop if you can.

By the way, the standard international container length is 40 feet, and there are a lot of 20 footers used as well. Domestic containers go up to 53 feet, and usually no more than that. You can put a 40 foot container in a well and stack a 53 footer on top of it, but you do have to pay attention to the weight of each so that you do not get your center of gravity too high.

George

 

[AlanB]

Another factor with long trains is the propogation time through the train of an application and release of the brakes. Ways to reduce this are being studied.

George,

Since you mentioned it, I'll post the following in case you haven't seen it elsewhere.

USDOT/FRA press release:
FRA Approves Waiver for New Braking Technology to Improve Train Control and Safety

Contact: Steve Kulm or Warren Flatau

Telephone: 202-493-6024

Thursday, March 29, 2007 (Washington, DC) Two railroads will begin equipping and operating trains with new brake technology capable of significantly improving train control, reducing derailments, and shortening stopping distances as a result of a waiver approved by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Administrator Joseph H. Boardman announced today.

“It is time for the railroad industry to embrace new train braking technology and prevent some of the accidents that are happening now,” Boardman said. “Rail safety can be improved and better brakes are part of the solution,” he stressed, noting that the FRA is considering issuing a proposed rule later this year designed to facilitate the widespread deployment of the technology known as Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) brakes.

Boardman said that ECP brake technology can help avert train derailments caused by sudden emergency brake applications, prevent runaway trains caused by loss of brake air pressure, and shorten train stopping distances up to 60 percent under certain circumstances. ECP brake systems also are capable of performing continual electronic self-diagnostic ‘health checks’ of the brakes to identify maintenance needs, he added.

ECP brakes apply uniformly and virtually instantaneously on every rail car throughout a train and not sequentially from one car to the next as is done with conventional pneumatic brake systems, Boardman explained. The full train brake application, and an ability to gradually apply and release the brakes, provides for vastly improved train control and enhances safety.

Boardman said the waiver request approved by the FRA allows BNSF Railway and Norfolk Southern Railway to install ECP brake systems on trains to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the technology in revenue service. Under the waiver, trains equipped with ECP brakes will be able to safely travel up to 3,500 miles without stopping to undergo certain routine brake inspections, more than double the distance currently allowed by federal regulations. It is expected that the railroads will use the waiver to test ECP brakes on container-only trains from West Coast ports to Chicago and on trains carrying coal from the Powder River Basin fields in Wyoming to southern and eastern power plants.

FRA placed several conditions on the waiver approval, including requirements that the railroads clearly define a process for handling brake problems discovered en route; ensure that ECP brake inspections be performed by qualified individuals; and provide appropriate training to crew members. The waiver ensures that proper safeguards will be in place and will permit FRA to gather extensive data that could be used in developing its proposed rulemaking. FRA also will carefully monitor the railroad’s compliance with the waiver using unannounced inspections of trains subject to the waiver.

A copy of the FRA waiver approval letter can be found at: www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1713.

By the way, thanks for the info on the container lengths. I just couldn't remember what they were for the life of me, probably because freight doesn't interest me like passenger does. Not saying that I don't mind watching one go by if I happen to be in the neighborhood, but I certainly wouldn't go looking for one.

 

[George Harris]

ECP brakes apply uniformly and virtually instantaneously on every rail car throughout a train and not sequentially from one car to the next as is done with conventional pneumatic brake systems, Boardman explained. The full train brake application, and an ability to gradually apply and release the brakes, provides for vastly improved train control and enhances safety.
Boardman said the waiver request approved by the FRA allows BNSF Railway and Norfolk Southern Railway to install ECP brake systems on trains to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the technology in revenue service. Under the waiver, trains equipped with ECP brakes will be able to safely travel up to 3,500 miles without stopping to undergo certain routine brake inspections, more than double the distance currently allowed by federal regulations. It is expected that the railroads will use the waiver to test ECP brakes on container-only trains from West Coast ports to Chicago and on trains carrying coal from the Powder River Basin fields in Wyoming to southern and eastern power plants.

FRA placed several conditions on the waiver approval, including requirements that the railroads clearly define a process for handling brake problems discovered en route; ensure that ECP brake inspections be performed by qualified individuals; and provide appropriate training to crew members.

I had heard about the concept, but had not seen this. Since I have speed the last several years playing with 6 to 12 car passenger train railroads, I have really not given this a lot of attention. Some of the things in the press release leave me a little skeptical about how much the FRA understands. Such stuff as, "Today’s air-brake systems are built on 19th century pneumatic technology that has been progressively refined to support current railroad operations." The whole concept of steel wheel on steel rail is built on 19th century technology, as is for that matter such stuff as the automobile, electric utilities, and a lot of other stuff we take for granted in day to day living. What is the point of such a statement? It was the assumption that everything in the normal railroad world is obsolete that let to such famous goofs as BART being built at a non-standard gauge and initially having a train detection system that would not detect the presence of a stopped train not drawing power. Have not read the various attachments yet, but I will.

The major issue I see with ECP is reliability and how do you ensure fail-safe? Too many new ideas in railroading have failed or were excessively delayed in acceptance because the absolute requirement for ruggedness, simplicity and reliability were not understood by their deveoloper.

George

 

[papike]

the thing i cant understand is the lack of the feds to continualy close their eyes to the freight companies

by letting them break the laws by not giving the passenger trains the right of way. i think ridership would

most definitly increase if the law was followed to the tee and late trains could be brought up to an

exceptable standard.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

If the administration doesn't like Amtrak and wants it to go away (what better to show that than the administration's zero funding proposals, or Minetta's manure-laden "facts" about Amtrak that he liberally fogged the air with before he finally departed?) then it seems to me that the more delays Amtrak trains experience, the happier the administration is, because the delays make passengers unhappy and create bad press for Amtrak. The administration controls those you refer to as "the feds". If you doubt that, go talk to a few federal prosecutors who were fired for not pushing politically motivated but legally unjustified prosecutions prior to the elections. With that in mind, just how much help do you think "the feds" are going to be to Amtrak in this case?

 

[Sam Damon]

the thing i cant understand is the lack of the feds to continualy close their eyes to the freight companiesby letting them break the laws by not giving the passenger trains the right of way. i think ridership would

most definitly increase if the law was followed to the tee and late trains could be brought up to an

exceptable standard.

I refer you to Post #2 above.

 

[AlanB]

Since we've been talking about the freight Co's spending money to upgrade/improve things, this article from Progressive Railroading might of some interest to all concerned.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

So as I read that, while they are making pretty sizeable investments in the infrastructure, they need to make at least twenty times that much, which isn't going to happen without participation by the feds. And of course with the C- grade for currently existing infrastructure, the investment needed is probably a whopping lot more than the amount stated. But all the feds seem to be able to think about is roads, roads, roads, and airports, airports, airports. So Amtrak gets later later later and spends lots of time parked on sidings. A couple of years of Iraq funding would probably have everything fixed and expanded and running smoothly.

Yeah, like that's going to happen.........

 

[George Harris]

The basic fact is that NONE of the railroad companies can raise enough money fast enough to spend what they need to on increasing capacity and improving facilities. Look at what KCS did with the Shreveport to Meridian line: They made a deal with Norfolk Southern to get a lot of money poured into increasing the capacity of the line, and KCS is a railroad that has shown itself willing to spend a lot of money in recent years on their fixed facilities.

I am sure that if BNSF had a pipeline into unlimited funds you would see a fully double tracked freight line all the way from Kansas City to Los Angeles with lots of triple track on the long grades west of Albuquerque. They are getting there as fast as the funds allow, and that is the key issue, as fast as the funds allow. There would probably be mostly or all double track across the "High Line" as well plus a second Cascade Tunnel, as the tunnel is the capacity limitation on that line. But again, not possible with the money they can raise from the shippers. Consider that the coal shippers and particularly the electric utilitiy companies are whining about excessive rates, as well, and the railroads really have no freedom to set the rates at what they need to in order to get the money they need to do this work and still keep the stockholders semi-happy.

George

 

[Sam Damon]

George makes a really salient point here, as well as showing all the flip side of my post #2.

There exists a very real tendency to forget the railroads are, after all, private corporations. Because of the very nature of their business, railroads bring up issues of federalism which are not very easily addressed by the US constitution. It has been that way since the time railroad companies wanted to put tracks across state lines.

These public policy issues that interstate railroad businesses in the USA bring up are not easy ones for local, state, and federal levels of government to address. And yet, solving these issues is vital if intercity passenger rail service is to survive in the USA. If one takes the view attributed to Teddy Roosevelt -- which I'll characterize as "If business is to be big, government has to be bigger" -- then you logically advocate public policy which makes the private railroads accountable for Amtrak's dreary OTP. By contrast, one who advocates a more lassiez-faire public policy for private railroads might advocate getting rid of taxes on added track capacity.

I realize this is oversimplifying things somewhat. Broadly speaking, though, these are the policy choices we have in the USA.